Defamation & HOA Elections | A.R.S. § 33-1804 | 1 CA-CV 21-0676
How Arizona treats HOA board members who sue critics over election-related statements — and why they must plead actual malice as limited-purpose public figures.
Last updated July 1, 2026. Case: Cheryl Marie McCoy, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Leslie Johnson, Defendant/Appellee; 1 CA-CV 21-0676; CV2020-010557.
Scope note: This educational case page summarizes a court ruling for Arizona HOA homeowners, boards, and counsel. It is not legal advice.
The rule in one sentence
Members and candidates of a large homeowners’ association’s board are limited-purpose public figures for defamation and false light purposes as to statements about their board service and HOA elections, so they must plead and prove actual malice. Because the plaintiffs failed to plead actual malice, and because limited-purpose public figures cannot maintain false light claims arising from their public duties, the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was affirmed.
Case Participants
Neutral Parties
- Cheryl Marie McCoy (“Cher”) (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Former Val Vista Lakes Community Association Board president; brought defamation and false light claims against Leslie Johnson. - Marcianne Johnson (“Marci”) (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Val Vista Lakes Board member re-elected in November 2019 and chosen as Board president; removed in the June 2020 recall election. - Melissa Wilson (Scovel) (“Melissa”) (Plaintiff/Appellant)
Val Vista Lakes Board member and former Board president; removed in the June 2020 recall election. - Leslie Johnson (Defendant/Appellee)
Fellow Val Vista Lakes Association member who authored the challenged social-media posts and meeting comment. - Val Vista Lakes Community Association (Non-party association)
The approximately 2,280-member Gilbert, Arizona homeowners’ association whose board and elections were the subject of the challenged statements; not a party to the suit. - Bradley R. Jardine (Counsel)
Jardine, Baker, Hickman & Houston, P.L.L.C.
Co-counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants. - Michael Warzynski (Counsel)
Jardine, Baker, Hickman & Houston, P.L.L.C.
Co-counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants. - Venessa J. Bragg (Counsel)
Elardo, Bragg, Rossi & Palumbo, P.C.
Co-counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants. - Nathan Brown (Counsel)
Brown Patent Law
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Leslie Johnson. - Cynthia J. Bailey (Judge)
Court of Appeals judge; authored the memorandum decision. - Samuel A. Thumma (Judge)
Presiding Judge on the Court of Appeals panel. - David B. Gass (Judge)
Vice Chief Judge on the Court of Appeals panel. - Andrew J. Russell (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who dismissed the complaint below.
What happened and why it matters
Three current or former members of the Val Vista Lakes Community Association Board — Cheryl “Cher” McCoy, Marcianne “Marci” Johnson, and Melissa Wilson (Scovel) — sued a fellow homeowner, Leslie Johnson, for defamation and false light invasion of privacy over social-media posts and a comment at an August 2020 board meeting. The challenged statements accused board members affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) of religiously motivated favoritism in selecting the board’s management committee (calling applicants “LDS hand-picked”) and questioned board members’ religion around the November 2019 board election and the June 2020 recall election that removed Marci and Melissa. The Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed the claims under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding the plaintiffs were limited-purpose public figures by reason of their board service and that the statements were non-actionable opinion. On appeal, Division One affirmed. It reasoned that the boards of large homeowners’ associations perform quasi-governmental functions and that their activities are matters of public concern to the community — reinforced by the Planned Communities Act’s open-meeting policy in A.R.S. § 33-1804 — so board members and candidates who inject themselves into HOA elections are limited-purpose public figures who must plead and prove actual malice. Because the plaintiffs failed to plead actual malice, and because limited-purpose public figures cannot maintain false light claims arising from their public duties, the court affirmed dismissal of both claims and denied Johnson’s unsupported request for appellate attorneys’ fees.
Reviewing the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, the Court of Appeals began with the settled rule that a court may decide as a matter of law whether a person is a public figure. Persons may be deemed public figures based on their positions, their purposeful activity in thrusting themselves into matters of public controversy, or their close involvement with the resolution of matters of public concern, and a person may become a limited-purpose public figure by voluntarily injecting themselves into, or being drawn into, a particular public controversy. Although Arizona courts had not decided in a written opinion whether board members of a large homeowners’ association can be limited-purpose public figures, the court found persuasive out-of-state authority holding that they can (Cabrera, Metge, Gulrajaney, Verna, and Martin). The superior court had relied on Verna, which viewed an association board position as essentially indistinguishable from membership on a town’s governing body because the board performs many quasi-municipal functions.
Applying that framework, the court observed that all three plaintiffs had been board candidates, had served on the Board, and had served as Board president at one time or another, so they either voluntarily injected themselves or were drawn into matters of concern to the Val Vista Lakes community. The court rejected the argument that a private association cannot produce public figures, citing Agar and Gulrajaney, and rejected the contention that plaintiffs did not start the “conversation” about their religion, explaining that voluntarily engaging in activity calculated to invite public scrutiny is enough. It also rejected the argument that the open-meeting provision of the Planned Communities Act shows HOAs are not governmental: the policy statement in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) — that meetings be conducted openly and members be able to speak after discussion of agenda items — strongly suggests that board activities and decisions are matters of public concern. The court distinguished private business boards because the legislature extended First Amendment-type protections to HOA members (A.R.S. §§ 33-1804, -1808).
Because the plaintiffs were limited-purpose public figures, the false light claim failed under Godbehere, which bars such claims that relate to the performance of public duties; plaintiffs did not dispute that the statements related to their board service. On defamation, a public-figure plaintiff must plead and prove actual malice, and conclusory characterizations without supporting factual specificity fail Arizona’s notice-pleading standard, especially in defamation actions (BLK III; Cullen). Plaintiffs conceded two of the three statements were not actionable, and the remaining “LDS hand-picked” post was not in the record and was not pleaded with the specificity needed to show it made a verifiable factual assertion about Marci or Melissa. The court therefore affirmed the dismissal and denied Johnson’s request for appellate attorneys’ fees because she cited no legal basis for the award.
This memorandum decision addresses a recurring tension in community-association life: robust, sometimes bitter, debate about board elections and governance can collide with individual board members’ desire to protect their reputations. By treating board members and candidates of a large HOA as limited-purpose public figures, the court placed HOA electoral speech on a footing similar to speech about local government, requiring a defamation plaintiff to plead and prove actual malice and barring false light claims tied to public duties. In practice, that raises the pleading bar substantially for board members who sue critics over election-related statements, and it protects members’ ability to comment publicly on candidates and board decisions.
The decision also underscores how Arizona’s Planned Communities Act frames HOA governance as a matter of community-wide public concern. The court read the open-meeting policy of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (with A.R.S. § 33-1808) as evidence that board activities are open, participatory, and quasi-governmental, distinguishing HOA boards from ordinary private business boards. Because this is an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c), it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule; even so, it illustrates how Arizona courts are likely to analyze defamation and false light claims arising from HOA elections, recall campaigns, and board management decisions. A separately docketed memorandum decision arising from the same community, McCoy v. Hassen, 1 CA-CV 21-0524, addresses related disputes.
Step-by-step litigation record
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/mccoy-v-johnson/raw/: 1 PDF. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.
Opinion
Type: Decision or judgment
Decision document; read it to understand the controlling result before moving to later filings.
FAQ
What was McCoy v. Johnson about?
Three current or former members of the Val Vista Lakes Community Association Board sued a fellow homeowner, Leslie Johnson, for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. The claims arose from social-media posts and a comment at an August 2020 board meeting that questioned board members’ religion and accused LDS-affiliated board members of favoring “LDS hand-picked” applicants for the board’s management committee, made around the November 2019 board election and the June 2020 recall election.
What is a “limited-purpose public figure,” and why did it matter?
A limited-purpose public figure is someone who voluntarily injects themselves into, or is drawn into, a particular public controversy. Such a plaintiff must prove “actual malice” — that the speaker knew a statement was false or recklessly disregarded its falsity — to win a defamation claim, and cannot bring a false light claim arising from the performance of their public duties. The court held the board members were limited-purpose public figures as to their board service and HOA elections.
Why did the court treat HOA board members like public figures?
The court relied on out-of-state authority (including the New Jersey Verna decision) holding that boards of large homeowners’ associations perform quasi-municipal functions, making board members comparable to members of a town’s governing body. Because the three plaintiffs had run for the board, served on it, and served as board president, the court found they had voluntarily entered matters of public concern to the roughly 2,280-member Val Vista Lakes community.
What role did the Planned Communities Act play?
The plaintiffs argued the Planned Communities Act’s open-meeting provision showed HOAs are not governmental. The court disagreed, reasoning that the policy statement in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) — requiring meetings to be conducted openly and members to be able to speak after discussion of agenda items — strongly suggests board activities and decisions are matters of public concern. The court also noted the Legislature extended First Amendment-type protections to HOA members (A.R.S. §§ 33-1804, -1808), distinguishing HOA boards from private business boards.
Why were the defamation and false light claims dismissed?
Because the plaintiffs were limited-purpose public figures, their false light claim about their public duties was barred, and their defamation claim required pleading actual malice. The court found the complaint offered only conclusory characterizations of the statements. Plaintiffs conceded two of three statements were not actionable, and the remaining “LDS hand-picked” post was not in the record and was not pleaded with the specificity needed to show a verifiable factual assertion about the plaintiffs.
Is this decision binding precedent, and who represented the parties?
No. It is an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c), so it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule. The plaintiffs/appellants were represented by Bradley R. Jardine and Michael Warzynski of Jardine, Baker, Hickman & Houston, P.L.L.C., and by Venessa J. Bragg of Elardo, Bragg, Rossi & Palumbo, P.C. Leslie Johnson was represented by Nathan Brown of Brown Patent Law.
Case Dossier
This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | 1 CA-CV 21-0676 |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Court of Appeals |
| Decision / key date | December 8, 2022 |
| Judge / panel | Cynthia J. Bailey, Samuel A. Thumma, David B. Gass |
| Parties | Cheryl Marie McCoy, et al. (Plaintiffs/Appellants) v. Leslie Johnson (Defendant/Appellee) |
| Governing law | |
| Topics | electionsprocedureopen-meetings |
| Outcome / holding | Members and candidates of a large homeowners’ association’s board are limited-purpose public figures for defamation and false light purposes as to statements about their board service and HOA elections, so they must plead and prove actual malice. Because the plaintiffs failed to plead actual malice, and because limited-purpose public figures cannot maintain false light claims arising from their public duties, the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was affirmed. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 1 PDF |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 10 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | No video embed currently configured |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Three current or former members of the Val Vista Lakes Community Association Board — Cheryl “Cher” McCoy, Marcianne “Marci” Johnson, and Melissa Wilson (Scovel) — sued a fellow homeowner, Leslie Johnson, for defamation and false light invasion of privacy over social-media posts and a comment at an August 2020 board meeting. The challenged statements accused board members affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) of religiously motivated favoritism in selecting the board’s management committee (calling applicants “LDS hand-picked”) and questioned board members’ religion around the November 2019 board election and the June 2020 recall election that removed Marci and Melissa. The Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed the claims under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding the plaintiffs were limited-purpose public figures by reason of their board service and that the statements were non-actionable opinion. On appeal, Division One affirmed. It reasoned that the boards of large homeowners’ associations perform quasi-governmental functions and that their activities are matters of public concern to the community — reinforced by the Planned Communities Act’s open-meeting policy in A.R.S. § 33-1804 — so board members and candidates who inject themselves into HOA elections are limited-purpose public figures who must plead and prove actual malice. Because the plaintiffs failed to plead actual malice, and because limited-purpose public figures cannot maintain false light claims arising from their public duties, the court affirmed dismissal of both claims and denied Johnson’s unsupported request for appellate attorneys’ fees.
Reviewing the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, the Court of Appeals began with the settled rule that a court may decide as a matter of law whether a person is a public figure. Persons may be deemed public figures based on their positions, their purposeful activity in thrusting themselves into matters of public controversy, or their close involvement with the resolution of matters of public concern, and a person may become a limited-purpose public figure by voluntarily injecting themselves into, or being drawn into, a particular public controversy. Although Arizona courts had not decided in a written opinion whether board members of a large homeowners’ association can be limited-purpose public figures, the court found persuasive out-of-state authority holding that they can (Cabrera, Metge, Gulrajaney, Verna, and Martin). The superior court had relied on Verna, which viewed an association board position as essentially indistinguishable from membership on a town’s governing body because the board performs many quasi-municipal functions.
Applying that framework, the court observed that all three plaintiffs had been board candidates, had served on the Board, and had served as Board president at one time or another, so they either voluntarily injected themselves or were drawn into matters of concern to the Val Vista Lakes community. The court rejected the argument that a private association cannot produce public figures, citing Agar and Gulrajaney, and rejected the contention that plaintiffs did not start the “conversation” about their religion, explaining that voluntarily engaging in activity calculated to invite public scrutiny is enough. It also rejected the argument that the open-meeting provision of the Planned Communities Act shows HOAs are not governmental: the policy statement in A.R.S. § 33-1804(F) — that meetings be conducted openly and members be able to speak after discussion of agenda items — strongly suggests that board activities and decisions are matters of public concern. The court distinguished private business boards because the legislature extended First Amendment-type protections to HOA members (A.R.S. §§ 33-1804, -1808).
Because the plaintiffs were limited-purpose public figures, the false light claim failed under Godbehere, which bars such claims that relate to the performance of public duties; plaintiffs did not dispute that the statements related to their board service. On defamation, a public-figure plaintiff must plead and prove actual malice, and conclusory characterizations without supporting factual specificity fail Arizona’s notice-pleading standard, especially in defamation actions (BLK III; Cullen). Plaintiffs conceded two of the three statements were not actionable, and the remaining “LDS hand-picked” post was not in the record and was not pleaded with the specificity needed to show it made a verifiable factual assertion about Marci or Melissa. The court therefore affirmed the dismissal and denied Johnson’s request for appellate attorneys’ fees because she cited no legal basis for the award.
This memorandum decision addresses a recurring tension in community-association life: robust, sometimes bitter, debate about board elections and governance can collide with individual board members’ desire to protect their reputations. By treating board members and candidates of a large HOA as limited-purpose public figures, the court placed HOA electoral speech on a footing similar to speech about local government, requiring a defamation plaintiff to plead and prove actual malice and barring false light claims tied to public duties. In practice, that raises the pleading bar substantially for board members who sue critics over election-related statements, and it protects members’ ability to comment publicly on candidates and board decisions.
The decision also underscores how Arizona’s Planned Communities Act frames HOA governance as a matter of community-wide public concern. The court read the open-meeting policy of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (with A.R.S. § 33-1808) as evidence that board activities are open, participatory, and quasi-governmental, distinguishing HOA boards from ordinary private business boards. Because this is an unpublished memorandum decision under Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c), it is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by rule; even so, it illustrates how Arizona courts are likely to analyze defamation and false light claims arising from HOA elections, recall campaigns, and board management decisions. A separately docketed memorandum decision arising from the same community, McCoy v. Hassen, 1 CA-CV 21-0524, addresses related disputes.